Thursday, January 29, 2015

A Welcome Relief to ObamaCare



So you've heard on the news that the deadline to get health coverage is looming and you're told you have to get coverage or else you'll pay a tax penalty.

Yet you don't want to be a party to the contraceptive mentality embedded in the Affordable Care Act, you don't want to take welfare just to pay your outrageous premium, your workplace dropped coverage because it's no longer compliant and in some cases, you can't get a different job unless you have health coverage.

In the end, you can't help but wonder if there is a better way.

In my looking into the issue, I have noticed one glaring misconception people have concerning insurance:

Most people think insurance is or should be designed to pay for everything.

Obviously, this is not how insurance works, nor was it ever designed to do that. So how does it work?
This is a very important concept to grasp so before I go any further, I'll put a mental picture as a distinct section here:


Imagine for a moment a giant pool, but instead of water, the pool is filled with money. Every person who has an insurance policy puts money in the pool, also known as the premium. Now, the reason why insurance companies can pay such high amounts in relation to premium is the amount of people putting money in the pool at any given time. Since the odds of everyone cashing in their policies at once are slim to none, and factoring in other assessments, the companies can drain out the amount they need from the pool.


Now that this concept has been established, please watch this video:

I have looked into the program myself and there are a few things that must be made clear about this:

-While it does operate like a regular insurance company, it does NOT call itself insurance.
-Also unlike an insurance company, MediShare does not operate on a profit
-The payments for health services, if you don't need to share the cost, operate more like a member discount club.
-It is possible to get a very low monthly share based on age and how many people are applying, but that will require a blood sugar test submitted along with your application.
-You can get either an individual or family plan, and if you are single and planning to get married, you can change it to a family plan

And here are three key parts:
-Unlike regular insurance, there is NO deadline or open enrollment period to get coverage.
-After some time, you will pay closer attention to how much medical costs are, thus shopping around for the lowest possible cost.
-If you want a plan, you also have to sign a morals clause, but that mostly consists of not using illegal drugs, not getting drunk all the time, and not engaging in premarital sex as long as you're a member.

For more information, check out their website:

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Re:Re: Logical Fallacies Atheists Make (Part 2)



This post continues my refutation of what some atheist fool wrote in a lame attempt to shoot me down. If you missed part one, here's a link.

Here's a link to the atheist's part two

Dicto simpliciter

First, the Example is nothing but a straw man argument (more on that later). The atheist would not say that all religious people bomb buildings (though, if one were to include abortion clinics and discount war zones, a corollary could be made between religious motivations and the propensity to engage in mayhem)."

Funny the writer uses that example: since Roe vs Wade, only two abortion clinics have been bombed, both were bombed by the same man who has since been caught, and the bomber even admitted in writing that he agrees more with Nietzsche (an atheist philosopher, by the way) than he does with the Bible. 
So congrats, atheist writer: instead of proving your point, you wound up proving mine. 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
An ironic example, one almost too easy for me to use, is that of prayer. You may pray for Uncle Joe to get well, and he may get well, but that doesn't mean that prayer caused him to get well (though this may rather be an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc). The author's Example is fatuous and her Exception is blatantly wrong; correlation can only ever establish a causal link. It can never prove causation on its own."

Either the writer wasn't paying attention to the point being made or doesn't seem to be aware of the fact there are several versions of prayer. The one he used is intercessory prayer, but there are at least nine other types. The point being made was atheists use one type of prayer and at the expense of the others, say overall prayer doesn't work. Well, if it doesn't work, how do you explain these studies?

Naturalistic fallacy
"The author is so wrong about the formulation of the naturalistic fallacy that I am having trouble determining where to begin. Reducing a vein of thought that spans Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Moore to the rubbish above is almost criminal. The author neglects the is-ought problem as well as Moore's discussion of trying to define "good" reductively in terms of natural properties. The author's Example is again a non-sequitur, since the origins of life may be mutually exclusive of a deity, depending on the definition of the latter."

Actually, I'm 100% right on this. While I am familiar with Hume and Kant, I had to look up what was meant by Bentham and Moore. (Upon researching this, the author was most likely referring to Jeremy Bentham and G.E. Moore). 
I like how the author believes this is an is-ought problem when the fallacy itself doesn't address the "how so?" part of the argument, namely how are we supposed to determine something is true or false based on evidence either not designed or not equipped to answer the question to begin with? The example I gave was saying God doesn't exist just because science can't prove God exists.
Since when did Christians or any other group ever claim that? For that matter, can we prove logic exists by putting it in a test tube?
Do you see how stupid the naturalistic fallacy gets after some time?

Non Sequitur
"The first sentence is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, not necessarily a non-sequitur. The second sentence hearkens back to the author's formulation of argumentum ad populum. All told, though, this is probably the least incorrect analysis so far."

Too bad for the author, this is his most incorrect take. The example I gave was ice cream sales rise at the same time car theft rises, but even though I said it was foolish to say ice cream causes car theft, I never said what the real reason was behind the connection:
Ice cream sales go up in the summer time, which is also the same time of year most car theft happens. 
Sometimes deep thought just isn't needed to reach the obvious conclusion.

One-Sided Assessment (This is a long one so let's break it down):

Fittingly, this analysis comes directly after the discussion of non-sequitur for without a definition of the latter, we could not discuss the former."
What's that supposed to mean? The earlier one was talking about using all evidence and forming an incorrect conclusion; this one is talking about ignoring evidence because it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

The One-Sided Argument, a variant of special pleading which is conspicuously omitted from the author's list of fallacies, ignores evidence and counterargument from opposing views."
Actually, it was never mentioned because it has nothing to do with anything. Special pleading is when you cite an exception to a rule without justifying the exception. That hasn't happened yet by me.

While anyone entering a debate should set ground rules regarding topic, support, and permitted tactics, the claiming a separate definition for religious "evidence" is special pleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst."
How? Dictionaries and indeed even casual use of language do it all the time. This is why word meanings change over time. Going back to the naturalistic fallacy for a moment, how would the atheist claiming science is all we need be any different? The author's entire take is self-refuting from the get-go.

The theist may pompously call into question scientific research and accepted theories, often in a derogatory way (I'm looking at you, Red Hat Guy), but will cry foul when it is pointed out that personal experience is not proof of god."
A) the part about questioning theories doesn't mean flat out rejection of said theories.
b) the most trusted scientific theories used today all came from Christian thinkers, not atheist.
c) If personal experience shouldn't count as proof of God, then an atheist's story of why they gave up religion, or the reasons they have for not believing shouldn't count as evidence either. You can't have it both ways.

 I sincerely hope that no one pointing out prison religious demographics, without more, is doing so in order to comment on the existence of a god."
They have and I have proof. Nice try though.

"The statement rather deals with religious claims of ethical exclusivity. And as I would for the statement, "God exists", I require proof that said study does not exist. At least you can show that."
The FBI even denies the existence of the study on belief inmates have, but that aside for a moment, are atheists expecting us to forget that atheist leaders who didn't believe they were answerable to a higher power are the same people who slaughtered their own people in the millions for the crime of defying them?
And don't hand me that bull about "God killed millions too". Wrong. I suggest reading the book Is God a Moral Monster? for the correct interpretation of those verses.

The whole point was to show atheists are NOTORIOUS for ignoring evidence they don't feel like listening to. I've said several people tell me they did show evidence to an atheist and every time the atheist pretended like nothing was said. 

Red herring
I am running out of novel ways to point out the disjunct between the author's definition of a logical fallacy and her Examples thereof"
That sucks for the author then, because I'm not running out of bullets to shoot him down with anytime soon.

By her own words, though, an exception can be made to this "rule" if I can show the link between the supposed red herring and the argument"
Let me know when the author actually does that.

The author's Example is somewhat of a straw man and is badly worded."
Wrong. Your take was badly thought out. Try again.

I see no reason why atheism can't be a religious stand in that it is a lack of belief in any and all divine mysteries. If, however, she is asserting that atheism is a religious belief, then she is clearly mistaken."
Nope. I'm not mistaken at all:

A better formulation would be, if atheism is a belief, then "off" is a TV channel."
Well, that's a category mistake if I've ever seen one. A TV being off means it can't be on any channel. The property to be on a channel is gone. However, that doesn't take away from the obvious proof atheism is a belief.

Slippery slope
As an aside, the slippery slope argument, used to much effect in Common Law countries, remains one of the arguments I hate most, and one I feel is the least supported. The text of actual court decisions can be found that include this argument with regard to homosexuality and bestiality. Asinine.

First of all, how can bestiality be justified under any circumstances? And as far as homosexuality is concerned, that's the best example of how atheists commit the slippery slope: they say gays should get married because straights divorce at a high rate, and we have racial equality so why can't we have gay equality, and….see how asinine THIS really is? 

I see no connection between the author's definition of Slippery Slope and her Example. I cannot tell whether she has mis-worded her thoughts, whether she has not understood some sort of argument presented to her, or whether she is simply making up stuff ad hoc. And as to the special pleading Exception, I can only say. Speaking of things needed, I require a drink now, as this is wearing me thin.

And I still don't see how he made the connection between how I write and whether I'm female. I know atheists think gender is relative but still…
As for my example, it's pretty obvious I was making fun of how it doesn't make sense to reject all gods just because some have proven to be false. Perhaps the writer doesn't understand basic English?
However, since he is under the impression I am female:

Trust me, sweetie: no one deserves a whiskey sour IV unit more than I do reading your inane drivel. 

The author's description is pretty accurate save that she omits the point of setting up a Straw Man, which is to be able to easily knock it down."
Actually, you can wind up ignoring the original point made and pretend none was ever made in the first place. Atheists seem to be masters at ignoring the obvious, as you will soon see in this case.

 I fail to see, though, how that premise relates to using crime rates in Christian nations to show that Christians kill each other."
See? Ignored the point trying to be made. The REAL point is atheists try to use this to show a contradiction that doesn't actually exist in Christianity.

 "While it may not be the strongest argument, were the premise supported, it would help to disprove the any notion of religion's ethical exclusivity."
How? Sure, sadly people who say they're Christian do horrible things but Christ said not all who call Him Lord will enter the Kingdom. Atheists not only have no such check but are also responsible for all human atrocities of the 20th century.  

I'm at a loss as to what point there is in heaven or hell that the premise ignores the teachings of the bible. Such a blanket statement is meaningless without proper support or citation."
Here you go:

And that's how the attempt at refuting me ended. I know he said at the end that he'd post a part three, but since that was posted in June of 2014 and this was posted on January 2015, I don't think anything is going to come of it. 

Sunday, January 11, 2015

My Thoughts on Charlie Hebdo



Let me get a few things straight: I do not in any way support what happened to those at Charlie Hebdo; I say that since the majority of atheists are still under the impression all religions are the same (more on this later). I further pray that French and international forces track down the one surviving culprit and bring her to justice.


What if like many other tragedies, atheists at worst got the whole thing wrong or at best missed the point?

Here's what makes me think that:

According to several reports, there has been much tension between the native French and Islamic immigrants moving to France. The tension comes down to the immigrants thinking they only need to answer to Sharia law and the native French think they're proud of their culture while somehow saying all things are relative at the same time.

You see, one can't really argue that all things are relative or that all religions are the same and this tragedy is proof positive of that. How so?

If one really believed all things are relative, then letting people live would be no different than barging in and shooting people dead. If things were relative, then joking about a tragedy would be no different than mourning the loss of the dead. Yet we know this doesn't make sense. They are not equal to each other.

If all religions were the same, then a) each religion would yield the same results (or have results that don't make a statistical difference) and b) would have the same reaction to being the subject of parody.


Muslims seem to the only ones who do this. I remind you this is the same French magazine that came under violent attack for reprinting the picture of Mohammed from a Danish newspaper.

Also, if the French are supposedly so proud of their culture, how come they disregard the faith that founded their nation? I'm sure many people come to France and visit Notre Dame but every Sunday that magnificent cathedral stands empty, an interesting curiosity in an increasingly unbelieving nation.

For that matter, if they're so proud, how come they don't have children at a high enough rate to pass that pride to? Little known fact: the Islamic immigrants are the only ones in France having children. If the population growth rate included only native French, it would be either close to or actually in the negative.

So there you have it: this problem came about because the French claim they're proud, don't have enough kids to prove they're proud so what reason do the immigrants have to believe that?

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Re:Re: Logical Fallacies Atheists Make (Part 1)



Fans of my blog will recall in March 2013 I made a list of fallacies atheists tend to make in their arguments against religious people. Every now and then since that posting, I've had atheists message me on their take and why what they do are not fallacies. Naturally, all of them failed to prove their point  so I thought that was that…

Until one day I came across an atheist writer on Reddit who put a little more effort in their rebuttal…but winds up failing all the same.  Never mind the writer thinks I'm a woman (which I'm not; how he got that idea, I don't know) so let's instead look at what he wrote and why it doesn't really work: (For the link to the article, click here.)

From the Argumentum ad antiquitatem part:
"Atheism being the default position means no one is born believing in a god or gods. That belief must be instilled and the type is usually determined on a geographic basis. Atheism has nothing to do with tradition or history; the theist, however, will happily argue that "people couldn't have gotten it wrong for 2000 years."

Oh, me oh my…where do I begin to point out the illogical, hypocritical blather from him? First, not being born with a belief doesn't count as a default anything. That's not even the right definition of default. Second, you commit a category mistake by saying "babies are born atheist" because babies by their nature don't have that trait anyway. They aren't even capable of believing in their own existence. 
Third, "belief must be instilled"? How does the writer think atheism is spread? By osmosis?
Fourth, that "geographic basis" might have worked if we didn't live in a globalized world and immigration wasn't as common as it is now, but it's a meaningless take now.
Fifth, I'm not sure what atheism having nothing to do with history is supposed to mean. Is the writer saying there have been no atheists in history? I'll remember that next time.
Sixth, I'm sure the writer will think of some supposedly brilliant notion they believe no one has tried before…but trust me: it's all been tried before.

From Argumentum ad hominem:
"I would fault the atheist who employs an ad hominem attack because it implicitly detracts from our position of arguing from logic. That said, I am most put off by the author's exceptions to the rule. That the label matches the fats or if the trait can be proven has no relevance to the argument unless it is the point of the argument, (see,religious people tend to have a lower IQ.") So no, you can't get away with saying atheists are idiots."

By the way, this was the exception I used:
if the label matches the facts given about a person, or if a certain trait may very well be relevant to the issue, or if the trait can be proven, then no fallacy was committed. Hence, why I can get away with saying atheists are idiots.

If one looks close enough, you'll find the author proved my point for me:

-he typed fats when he should have typed facts.
-Could the author explain to me and anyone else for that matter how a proven trait or a proven fact (see? I can spell fact correctly) can hold relevance to an argument but not be the point or have anything to do with the point?
-Religious people also have a higher IQ than atheists (more on this to come)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam:
"There is obvious hypocrisy here, since the theist will gladly assert since it cannot be disproved, god must exist. There are also corollaries to the "Therefore, God" conclusion. However, an atheist may not assert gnostically that god does not exists because it has never been proven there is one. Argumentum ad ignorantiam leads to a false dichotomy of true/false. It neglects the viable conclusions of "unknown" and "unknowable"."

What hypocrisy? Atheists say all the time "I'm not convinced of the notion of God existing". Why can't Christians not be convinced of the atheist stand? This has nothing to do with "therefore God" conclusion. Not even close. gnostically is also not a word, unless they meant agnostically in which case you can't say in one breath you're an atheist then say in the next an agnostic stand. The two don't have the same meaning. 
Clearly, the author missed my point in reaching a conclusion based on the evidence we have. And with that, maybe there is some hypocrisy, but if in fact there is, it's clearly from the atheist, not me.

Argumentum ad nauseam:
"I can't think of, and the author gives no example of, what types of arguments atheists tend to repeat ad nauseam. On the other hand, being told that I must have faith has frustrated me on numerous occasions. "Overwhelming evidence" strikes me as misused, as does the burden-shifting."

I may have been in a hurry to get the post up at the time, so that explains why I didn't give any actual examples, but in spite of that
REALLY? You can't think of anything atheists repeat over and over?
With luck, someone else has put together notions atheists seem to be stuck on:

And the writer wants to get into an argument with me about frustration? No one truly knows frustration until you hear "God is imaginary" or "Jesus is a myth" over  4000 times.

Argumentum ad populum
Another clear example of hypocrisy. Christians, will often argue that 2 billion people can't all be wrong. The dicto simpliciter hypothetical regarding growing philosophical movements is intellectually bankrupt--I see no need to comment further. And what utility is there in saying that Christianity is a matter of culture?"

Here is what Christians REALLY argue:
If about 45% of the world hold belief A, but at best 2% of the world hold belief Z, then there must be something to A that makes it more convincing than Z. 
He won't comment further because he may have realized he himself used a  dicta simpliciter here.
What utility? Wasn't the writer the same person who earlier said religion is just from where people grew up? Doesn't that make it part of their culture? The writer seems to want it both ways, ignored the five points I brought up and fails on all counts.

Begging the question
I'm going to go with Welton's definition on this: petitio principii occurs "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof". I see no need to go further than pointing out that the theist assumes that there is a god, yet offers no proof beyond logical fallacies. There is nothing outside of the bible that would prove the bible to be true."

Uh….hello? What was that you were saying about hypocrisy? 
The last sentence is flat out false. Here are a few links that show the writer doesn't know what he's talking about:

The foolish atheist then blathers one about moving on to another article, so I'll refute everything he says in Part 2. 

Sunday, January 4, 2015

The True Source of Modern Atheism



Atheism has existed in man since the dawn of civilization; of that there is no doubt. Yet that type of atheism can better be described as the internal struggle we have in fighting against our darker natures, also known as the part of our souls that urges us in defying God and His holy laws.

Today, we have a new wave of external atheism with people who not only have given in to that dark impulse but try to encourage others to do so as well. Christians across America especially were just in shock at how many left the faith numbers never seen before.

I myself have argued with many atheists who told me they were once Christians at one point but gave the faith up because certain teachings no longer made sense to them. When I asked them what teaching they rejected, I noticed a strange but common theme in all of them:

At absolute worst, they had the teaching 100% wrong or at best, completely missed the point of the teaching.

Yet, when I pointed out to the atheist how they have the teaching wrong, and gave the sources for the correct teaching, every single time they threw a fit, got defensive and just shut down (instead of being open to new information, like a REAL self-proclaimed "open-minded" person should do.)

So I of course took a different rout with the teachings. I worked backwards and looked into every single branch that held the questionable teachings and came to a very disturbing conclusion:

Every single former Christian all came from a branch of Protestantism.

(Note: for clarification, Protestantism refers to any type of Christianity that is neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy.)

I wanted to think this was just a mere coincidence: after all, I didn't believe it was that possible that many people could be that ill-informed. But the coincidences just kept adding up. 

Just look at the so-called Four Horseman of atheism:
Dawkins: former Anglican
Sam Harris: former Quaker on his father's side
Daniel Dennett: no data
Christopher Hitchens: former Christian, most likely nondenominational

Not good enough? Consider the following chart:


(For a link to the study, click here.)

One interesting fact should jump out at you right away: While the percentage of Christians did shrink while the irreligious went up, they moved at about the same rate in their respective directions…and the Christian losses are almost entirely from Protestantism.

Is it any wonder why this is the case? Just think about two of the main teachings of Protestantism: Scripture Alone and Faith Alone.

If all you needed to know about God and Jesus was in the Bible myself, then people would reach the exact same conclusions about what Christianity teaches (since the Bible reads the same in all Protestant branches), but not all branches agree with each other. If all you needed was faith, how can you defend what you believe? You can't. At best, you come off as arrogant that yours is the only correct way and at worst, you've built a framework where you can't logically show why differing opinions are wrong.

Again, is it any wonder that these poor souls are so mixed up about what Christianity teaches? Is it any further wonder that these branches wind up ignoring key parts of the Bible because it doesn't fit into their theology and are then at a loss to explain the passages when challenged?

I say poor souls of course in the broadest sense of the term: perhaps at one point, their ignorance about Christianity can be excused because resources were not widely available but that excuse doesn't hold up anymore.  You can find the truth of Christian teachings, but we are talking about the same people who would much rather play video games than give any real thought to their lives.

I do have an additional message for any Protestant reading this:
Don't fool yourself into thinking for one moment things will get better for your faith if you only catered more to today's world or you make people feel good about themselves instead of going on about hell or sin or damnation.

So when you bemoan young people not believing in the power of Jesus, I point the finger at you, Protestants, and say you are largely to blame.

Who's perpetuating creationism? Protestants
Who are the ones bearing false witness against the Catholic Church by calling it the "whore of Babylon" (that's uncharitable and un-Christian to do, by the way)? Protestants
Who's making God's word nothing more than opinion? Protestants
Who's promoting those idiotic Left Behind novels? Protestants
Who's keeping Kirk Cameron's career going? Protestants

There are several Protestant branches that show signs they're dying out…what makes you so confident in yours?